Yapp banned from WPA tournament?
- Thread starter kling&allen
- Start date
Well, Karl Boyes is coming on Window's Open this coming Monday. It should provide for an interesting interview to hear it from a player's perspective as well as a Matchroom representative.
Personally, I think all parties should take this behind closed doors. It does not need to be aired publicly at this time. If it comes to a point where it's a standstill or a checkmate, then it can be open for public comment. But at this stage, I'm not enjoying the colloquy one bit.
I think the US Open player agreement has that language about not playing in other US Open events, although it’s weirdly worded and what it’s referring to isn’t clear.
Ishaun said (paraphrasing) the schedule was not really a concern by anyone "anymore", because there are simply too many events so it's impossible to not have any clashes. I inferred this was a good thing.
The sanctioning part included all of it. Not just the money, but more following all the rules of the WPA, which included the WPA is the sole authority, and thus is the only authority that can block players/federations from playing anywhere. MR must remove those clauses from their player contracts. The "points list" that MR wanted control of for 9 ball "to have skin in the game", we now hear more from the other side. Ishaun (me paraphrasing again), said what MR tried to do was lock up the entire game of 9 ball by controlling all the points. If another promoter wanted to come in and hold a big 9 ball event, they would not be able to. Or if they did, it would not count towards anything unless they worked directly with MR.
Ishaun had it and said he'd email it to Molina and Michael after their podcast.
Ishaun was portraying it to be the complete opposite. He only talked about this briefly (me, personally, I have no knowledge of it, so just going by what he said). He said (paraphrasing), that the APBU has been the one that has not disclosed their financials, recored their minutes properly, etc. He said it has been going on for years, and they have been a thorn in the side of the WPA for years, and the WPA was trying to kick them out for 10 years.
Now making it world political, not pool political:
He also said they were based in Taiwan, and because of that, China had refused to acknowledge them. This caused years of issues and headaches with China. Now that the new organization is not based in Taiwan, China is happy, and things are going much smoother with China.
It was in the podcast. It went something like (and I may be remembering wrong), the 2022 event was not WPA sanctioned, but everything was still rosy. If things progress the way they seem to be, and players go to the 2023 event (assuming it also won't be WPA sanctioned), then they would be banned. Edit to add: only if that's what the WPA votes to do in their Oct meeting.
Last edited:
I don't know how you read all those comments! They were scrolling by so fast, I gave up trying. Do you read as fast as you type? ha ha.
I like this new guy Ishaun. He answered every question asked. He held his own and didn't let some of the frustrations from MM get to him. I don't ever remember anything from Ian either. But maybe that's because we are living in social media times? Where in Ian's reign, it was only press releases?
One thing that I inferred from the interview, (but not explicitly stated) was that the WPA structure is what organized pool to begin with. It's what allowed international competition. It's what created the superstars of today. So for a company like MR to exist by showcasing the world's best.... well the world's best came up through the WPA system. Speaking of Charlie, we can see that difference in his 14.1 world championship. When it was WPA sanctioned for its first 2 years, it had killer fields. When it was not, it was basically a regional Joss tour event in skill, and not even their championship event.
I thought Ishaun did a great job of his basic pool organization analogy. It was (paraphrasing): Pool organizaton starts as a few players getting together to form a club. Then a few other players do the same to form their own club. Next each club elects a leader. Those leaders meet with each other. Then those leaders all elect a leader for their region. On and on, culminating with the board of the WPA, which has one leader from each of the continental federations. That's basically how national governments are set up. Effectively, each person on the WPA board started somewhere as a pool player in a club.
Ishaun is a pool player from a system that merits bureaucracy and group thinking, the WPA.
The WPA and WCBS are recognized by the IOC.
As recognized by the IOC WCBS athletes can create:
1) Athletes declaration of rights: Language regarding bans and communication between federations and players should be developed.
2) Submit an ethics complaint to evaluate and potential remove the WCBS/WPA for having IOC recognition. This could create an opportunity for Matchroom to sneak in and claim IOC recognition or NOC.
3) Currently pool has no athlete declaration of rights, despite being recognized by the IOC.
Removing a group of registered players for an event is "Match Fixing" or "Manipulation of Competition". However a ban and manipulation of competition are overlapping events.
If you as a reader are unclear of my intentions its to show IOC recognition brings benefits to athletes in those federations. However because the IOC does not have a local presence in sports federation facilities, athletes "choose to be unaware of those policies." Federation athletes kept in the dark about IOC processes because of "bureaucratic responsibilities."
The WPA and WCBS are recognized by the IOC.
As recognized by the IOC WCBS athletes can create:
1) Athletes declaration of rights: Language regarding bans and communication between federations and players should be developed.
2) Submit an ethics complaint to evaluate and potential remove the WCBS/WPA for having IOC recognition. This could create an opportunity for Matchroom to sneak in and claim IOC recognition or NOC.
3) Currently pool has no athlete declaration of rights, despite being recognized by the IOC.
Removing a group of registered players for an event is "Match Fixing" or "Manipulation of Competition". However a ban and manipulation of competition are overlapping events.
If you as a reader are unclear of my intentions its to show IOC recognition brings benefits to athletes in those federations. However because the IOC does not have a local presence in sports federation facilities, athletes "choose to be unaware of those policies." Federation athletes kept in the dark about IOC processes because of "bureaucratic responsibilities."
The research is true in regards to the APBU made those claims. They posted them in open letters that anyone see for themselves. Whether the claims themselves are true is open for critique. Did the WPA post an open response you can link to?
Last edited:
if that has had any influence at all, that is really saddening
I think that’s a fair analogy. I kinda doubt it actually manifests that way. At least when you consider professional pool, I think there’s a lack of representation from professional pool players in the structure. If it’s in the best interest of the players for them to get suspended, I think the players should have a stronger say in whether this is truly in their best interest. I’m coming around to the idea of a players union being needed. Given she’s taken a role as players affairs director, I think Kelly would be someone we want to hear from. I think all the regional federations should have an active pro on their boards. For the WPA, I’d prefer to see that role put forth by a players union.
Matt, I appreciate your investigative spirit, but to put it bluntly, you are not on the inside. There are things you don't know. Not everything is made public, and shouldn't be.
I know that. But this is a public forum where those on the outside discuss such matters. And in turn bring forth whatever information is available. That seems to bother you.
I've rarely found myself so confused about pool's politics as I am in this thread. Yes, I fully understand the parties involved and the basic substance of their arguments. That said, the number of versions of who said what and who stands for what is more than I can sift through. Some of it doesn't jive with my recollections.
In the end, if the result is that players are not, more or less, free to play in the events they like, our sport will suffer.
In the end, if the result is that players are not, more or less, free to play in the events they like, our sport will suffer.
Sheesh, I didn't realize there were 100s of different pool federations across the globe. What do they do exactly? Are they providing any financial support for players? Which federation overseas the USA?
What bothers me is that I can't explain everything I know because it's not ethical to do so. I can only offer information in a broad way, such as letting you know that you don't have all the information and that some things may be taken out of context.
Last edited:
That’s an issue when a group relies on secrecy to justify its existence. “Everything we do looks corrupt and incompetent, but trust us. We are really good at our jobs but can’t tell you about it.”
That might work if you are making nuclear submarines or doing something important, but not when you are overseeing pool.
That being said, I think the WPA president from South Africa did a good job trying to answer questions on the Window’s Open podcast.
No, that's not true. You're way off base here. It's not about hiding something corrupt or sinister. It's about acting ethically. There are lines that should not be crossed. If you don't understand that, then there's nothing more for me to say. You're just acting immature. Whaa whaa whaa! I want my candy and if you won't give me what I want then you're a bad person!!
Last edited: